Hingis being greater than Henin is no slam dunk. Only if you only look at 7 slams vs 5, but if that was all that mattered Margaret Court would be the GOAT. Hingis has all those weeks at #1, most before the ridiculous ranking system began. She has a great doubles career where Henin has achieved squat all in doubles. Lets say you even gave doubles slams 10% the value of singles it would still bring the two very close already. Hingis was far more precocious, becoming youngest ever slam winner, youngest ever #1, these are things she will be in the history books for a very long time, who knows maybe forever. What will Henin be remembered for, her Roland Garros record, it is nice but there are a number of better records at the event in history even there- Evert, Graf, Lenglen, Court. Her great 2007 year, again nice, but there are probably a dozen better years in the Open era including Serena's 2002 and Hingis' 1997. Had she won Wimbledon she could have really made that a special year that ranks alot higher up, including probably above those two I mentioned, but too bad Bartoli had other plans.

One thing is for sure, regardless who is greater, Hingis made more impact on the sport. People still today talk about Hingis as possibly being the smartest, most creative, and most tactically astute player in tennis history. Henin is basically a combination of a wannabee poor womens big babe after lots of weight and strength training (the extra power her only edge over Hingis really) and a poor womens Hingis kind of mixed together into one player, so obviously alot more effective than if she were only one of those things, but not really an extra special type of player in anyway other than maybe the hardest hitting 5"6 player ever as if anyone really cares about that, lol! An overachiever who was never marked for legends status coming up, but found her niche vulturing a weak clay era, and capatilizing on the injuries and declines of various stars in the mid 2000s. Good for her though, she certainly took ALL her opportunities and made the most of her comparatively limited talents, and she deserves her status as the best clay court player of her era, and fully deserves all her 7 slam titles she won and status as a 7 slam singles winner, but is it clear cut she is overall superior to Hingis and Venus as her fans make it out to be, definitely not. Especialy when those two had far more impact on the sport and excelled in both singles and doubles in a huge way (and Venus even has the same # of singles slams to boot). Hingis also excelled in the all time golden age of the womens game from 1998-2003, the same one Serena stamped her greatness so emphatically by dominating such a deep field late 2001-mid 2003. Henin vultured in the absence of the Williams and capatilized on the start of the dry spell for the WTA, admitedly nowhere near as bad as today yet, but nothing like the era the Wiliams and Hingis won many of their titles in. When people talk about the glory period of womens tennis that was a period that people will recall included Serena, Venus, Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Graf in her later years. Henin had a little era of her own but it will be remembered as the post Golden period basically once all of those went down or retired.

She won the last nine slam tournaments she entered. During her 1953 GS, she lost one set that year.

She would be the GOAT no doubt. She would have 35 slams or more I bet. People talk about what Seles might have achieved without the stabbing, but Connolly was a whole other level entirely. She was unbeatable on all surfaces, not just slower ones like Seles, and there was nobody to challenge her until Court in 62 probably.

I think Seles and Graf would both probably have the edge prime to prime vs Evert on clay. Graf was just a bad matchup for Evert in general even if she wasnt really a better clay courter. Evert I actually think would have been a bad matchup for Seles, however on clay Seles's persistent and oh so consistent power hitting, accuracy, and angles with power, would have still been a bit too much for Evert most times. I still think Evert deserves recognition as the clay GOAT as she mantained her best level on clay for 15 years, and her day to day consistency on the surface is mind boggling, 125 straight wins over 6 years no matter how weak the clay field was! I do think Graf and Seles both played in a far tougher clay field than Evert did though.

It is interesting to wonder how Lenglen and Connolly would compare on clay at their best transported to the same time as well. Really impossible to guage with any accuracy in their case.

Graf is certainly in Evert's league on clay. As for Seles, Evert would have figured her out, and had the same kind of success Hingis did. Once prime Evert adjusts to the pace of shot, Seles hasn't much more to trouble her with. Graf's slice bothered Evert more and Steffi's footspeed was such that Evert could not keep her out of position long enough to take advantage frequently enough.

Regarding Henin and Hingis, Hingis won 3 out of her 5 slams in 1997 which was one of the weakest years in the history of women's tennis. Her competition was pretty thin on the ground that year. Henin won her 7 slams between 2003-2007, and all 5 of those years had a stronger level of competition than 1997 did.

Also Hingis won Wimbledon and Henin didn't, but Hingis got her title in 1997 before Davenport, the Williams sisters, Mauresmo etc peaked. Fair play to her for that though. She beat an injured Novotna in the final that year. I really don't think Henin was any worse a player on grass than Hingis was to be honest. At her peak she had to contend with far stronger grass court opponents than Hingis did during hers.

The two players were of a pretty similar standard on hard courts, grass and indoors but Henin was clearly much better on clay.

Regarding Henin and Hingis, Hingis won 3 out of her 5 slams in 1997 which was one of the weakest years in the history of women's tennis. Her competition was pretty thin on the ground that year. Henin won her 7 slams between 2003-2007, and all 5 of those years had a stronger level of competition than 1997 did.

Also Hingis won Wimbledon and Henin didn't, but Hingis got her title in 1997 before Davenport, the Williams sisters, Mauresmo etc peaked. Fair play to her for that though. She beat an injured Novotna in the final that year. I really don't think Henin was any worse a player on grass than Hingis was to be honest. At her peak she had to contend with far stronger grass court opponents than Hingis did during hers.

The two players were of a pretty similar standard on hard courts, grass and indoors but Henin was clearly much better on clay.

You are right 1997 was a really weak year. Hingis though showed in late 96 she was ready to seriously challenge a prime Graf for #1, it was just unfortunate Graf got injured and she couldnt prove herself vs her. Hingis was #1 ranked most of 1998-2001 vs a very strong field, and while she only won 2 majors her ranking was not controversial until 2001. She had chances to win a number more too but choked some away, made many finals, won a WTA Championships, and won many tournaments. 2003 was a very strong year, but Henin lucked out with both Williams getting injured and missing the U.S Open, and Serena the 04 Australian Open, and this added with the French Open she won by beating Serena gave her the appearance of a dominant run. 2004-2007 were all pretty average years for the WTA, stronger than 1997, but much weaker than 1998-2003. The clay field was never at all strong this period and that is where most of Henin's major titles after winning the 03 U.S Open and 04 Australian Open sans Williams came.

I dont know if they are similar on hard courts. Hingis has a far better Australian Open record. Henin has 2 U.S Open titles and played amazing tennis to win both, but Hingis's overall record is far more consistent there. Henin never won Miami, one of the biggest hard court events, Hingis has won it twice and always performed well there.

I also dont know that they are similar indoors. Hasnt Hingis posted alot more top results indoors than Henin.

Hingis being greater than Henin is no slam dunk. Only if you only look at 7 slams vs 5, but if that was all that mattered Margaret Court would be the GOAT. Hingis has all those weeks at #1, most before the ridiculous ranking system began. She has a great doubles career where Henin has achieved squat all in doubles. Lets say you even gave doubles slams 10% the value of singles it would still bring the two very close already. Hingis was far more precocious, becoming youngest ever slam winner, youngest ever #1, these are things she will be in the history books for a very long time, who knows maybe forever. What will Henin be remembered for, her Roland Garros record, it is nice but there are a number of better records at the event in history even there- Evert, Graf, Lenglen, Court. Her great 2007 year, again nice, but there are probably a dozen better years in the Open era including Serena's 2002 and Hingis' 1997. Had she won Wimbledon she could have really made that a special year that ranks alot higher up, including probably above those two I mentioned, but too bad Bartoli had other plans.

One thing is for sure, regardless who is greater, Hingis made more impact on the sport. People still today talk about Hingis as possibly being the smartest, most creative, and most tactically astute player in tennis history. Henin is basically a combination of a wannabee poor womens big babe after lots of weight and strength training (the extra power her only edge over Hingis really) and a poor womens Hingis kind of mixed together into one player, so obviously alot more effective than if she were only one of those things, but not really an extra special type of player in anyway other than maybe the hardest hitting 5"6 player ever as if anyone really cares about that, lol! An overachiever who was never marked for legends status coming up, but found her niche vulturing a weak clay era, and capatilizing on the injuries and declines of various stars in the mid 2000s. Good for her though, she certainly took ALL her opportunities and made the most of her comparatively limited talents, and she deserves her status as the best clay court player of her era, and fully deserves all her 7 slam titles she won and status as a 7 slam singles winner, but is it clear cut she is overall superior to Hingis and Venus as her fans make it out to be, definitely not. Especialy when those two had far more impact on the sport and excelled in both singles and doubles in a huge way (and Venus even has the same # of singles slams to boot). Hingis also excelled in the all time golden age of the womens game from 1998-2003, the same one Serena stamped her greatness so emphatically by dominating such a deep field late 2001-mid 2003. Henin vultured in the absence of the Williams and capatilized on the start of the dry spell for the WTA, admitedly nowhere near as bad as today yet, but nothing like the era the Wiliams and Hingis won many of their titles in. When people talk about the glory period of womens tennis that was a period that people will recall included Serena, Venus, Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Graf in her later years. Henin had a little era of her own but it will be remembered as the post Golden period basically once all of those went down or retired.

actually people do and remember henin for that great one-handed BH and the fact that she dominated the women's field that included serena and venus ......

and again as has been said before, 97 in which hingis won 3 of her 5 slam titles was wayyy weaker than any of the years in which henin won her slams ....

henin defeated Serena thrice in slams in 2007 .... now fat chance of hingis coming anywhere close to such a thing ....

Henin dominated tennis for only one year- 2007. The field included Serena and Venus but nowhere near their primes. Serena was out of shape and nowhere near her 1999-2003 level or even her 2008-2012 level. Venus was long past her best by then. The #2 and #3 ranked players that year were Kuznetsova and Jankovic. Hingis dominated a field with Serena and Venus too technically, both were on tour in 1997 and early 1998 when Hingis was still totally dominant, but like 2007 nowhere near their best.

Hingis was generally regarded as the best player in womens tennis for 3 years- 1997 to 1999. Henin for only 1- 2007. This despite that Henin had a not so strong field to play with in 2004-2006, in 2006 she didnt play a Williams in a slam final and still went 1-3 in slam finals. Henin couldnt even be the best player in the World in an average field in 2004, 2005, and 2006, and Hingis was in a strong one in both 1998 and 1999.

Henin dominated tennis for only one year- 2007. The field included Serena and Venus but nowhere near their primes. Serena was out of shape and nowhere near her 1999-2003 level or even her 2008-2012 level. Venus was long past her best by then. The #2 and #3 ranked players that year were Kuznetsova and Jankovic. Hingis dominated a field with Serena and Venus too technically, both were on tour in 1997 and early 1998 when Hingis was still totally dominant, but like 2007 nowhere near their best.

Hingis was generally regarded as the best player in womens tennis for 3 years- 1997 to 1999. Henin for only 1- 2007. This despite that Henin had a not so strong field to play with in 2004-2006, in 2006 she didnt play a Williams in a slam final and still went 1-3 in slam finals. Henin couldnt even be the best player in the World in an average field in 2004, 2005, and 2006, and Hingis was in a strong one in both 1998 and 1999.

lol, what ?

henin was clearly no 1 in 2003 - she won the FO beating serena and clijsters
she won the USO beating capriati and clijsters

she also made the SFs of AO and wimbledon ..

don't even start with that serena was the best player , because she coudn't even play that many matches and she did lose @ the FO to henin

when henin was no 1 in 2006 - she won a slam and made finals of the other 3 and won the WTA championships, win record of 87%

when hingis was no 1 in 2000, her record was clearly worse with one final and 2 SFs and a win in the WTA championships

in 98, she was #2, behind davenport , her record was one win, 1 final, 2 sfs and win at the wta championships, a 82% win record ... still quite clearly inferior to henin's 2006 ....

coming back to 2007, serena had won the AO, and was playing pretty decently at the USO ( so was Venus ) ... and henin beat beat them both there ....

henin was clearly no 1 in 2003 - she won the FO beating serena and clijsters
she won the USO beating capriati and clijsters

she also made the SFs of AO and wimbledon ..

don't even start with that serena was the best player , because she coudn't even play that many matches and she did lose @ the FO to henin

LOL at the end of 2003 EVERYONE considered Serena as still being the best player, and in fact Venus as 2nd best. Henin was now considered the best on clay, that is it. Henin did deserve the #1 ranking since both she and Serena won 2 slams, and Henin played a whole year, but if you think she was considered "best player" at years end you are delusional, just as you are delusional on so many things. All through the U.S Open the commentators repeatedly mentioned "Venus and Serena, the 2 best players in the World missing." Until Henin beat Serena or Venus on any non clay surface, something she had NEVER done in her career to that point, nobody was going to consider her the best.

Serena until she was forced to miss the rest of the year with injury after Wimbledon had been clearly the best on hard courts and clearly the best on grass, Henin came nowhere close, and in fact Serena was much closer to her on clay than Henin was to Serena on either other surface. Based on that she was still clearly the best player in the World with no argument for Henin, the #1 ranking for Henin yes, but that doesnt always equate to best player.

Quote:

when henin was no 1 in 2006 - she won a slam and made finals of the other 3 and won the WTA championships, win record of 87%

Mauresmo was considered the best player at the end of 2006 since she won 2 slams to Henin's 1 and beat Henin in the finals of both. Henin arguably deserved the #1 ranking, but Mauresmo was considered the top player of the year.

So just like I said the only year Henin was considered the best was 2007. Hingis was considered the best player in 1997, 1998, 1999.
This despite that the field in 1998 and 1999 was much better than 2004, 2005, and 2006, all which Henin failed to claim stake as the best player in the World.

Quote:

in 98, she was #2, behind davenport , her record was one win, 1 final, 2 sfs and win at the wta championships, a 82% win record ... still quite clearly inferior to henin's 2006 ....

I have no idea whatsoever how Davenport ever ended 1998 at #1 since Hingis had better slam results- Australian Open winner, French Open semis, Wimbledon semis, U.S Open runner up vs Australian Open semis, French Open semis, Wimbledon quarters, U.S Open Champion, performed better all year across various surfaces by far (Davenport had the best year on hard courts), and won the WTA Championships over Davenport as well. Davenport managed to win only 1 more tournament (6 to 5) which clearly does not compensate for her inferior big event performance. Davenport's results at the end of 1998 in no way indicated her as the best player over Hingis overall, despite her #1 ranking.

LOL at the end of 2003 EVERYONE considered Serena as still being the best player, and in fact Venus as 2nd best. Henin was now considered the best on clay, that is it. Henin did deserve the #1 ranking since both she and Serena won 2 slams, and Henin played a whole year, but if you think she was considered "best player" at years end you are delusional, just as you are delusional on so many things. All through the U.S Open the commentators repeatedly mentioned "Venus and Serena, the 2 best players in the World missing." Until Henin beat Serena or Venus on any non clay surface, something she had NEVER done in her career to that point, nobody was going to consider her the best.

so now the criteria is henin has to beat serena/venus on a non-clay surface ? lol !

venus didn't win a single major in 2003 .... she was NOT the no2 player in 2003, not even close ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Serena until she was forced to miss the rest of the year with injury after Wimbledon had been clearly the best on hard courts and clearly the best on grass, Henin came nowhere close, and in fact Serena was much closer to her on clay than Henin was to Serena on either other surface. Based on that she was still clearly the best player in the World with no argument for Henin, the #1 ranking for Henin yes, but that doesnt always equate to best player.

you need to play to be considered the best player ...henin was #1 player for 2003 ... fact .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Mauresmo was considered the best player at the end of 2006 since she won 2 slams to Henin's 1 and beat Henin in the finals of both. Henin arguably deserved the #1 ranking, but Mauresmo was considered the top player of the year.

So just like I said the only year Henin was considered the best was 2007. Hingis was considered the best player in 1997, 1998, 1999.
This despite that the field in 1998 and 1999 was much better than 2004, 2005, and 2006, all which Henin failed to claim stake as the best player in the World.

henin was no 1 in 2006 .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I have no idea whatsoever how Davenport ever ended 1998 at #1 since Hingis had better slam results- Australian Open winner, French Open semis, Wimbledon semis, U.S Open runner up vs Australian Open semis, French Open semis, Wimbledon quarters, U.S Open Champion, performed better all year across various surfaces by far (Davenport had the best year on hard courts), and won the WTA Championships over Davenport as well. Davenport managed to win only 1 more tournament (6 to 5) which clearly does not compensate for her inferior big event performance. Davenport's results at the end of 1998 in no way indicated her as the best player over Hingis overall, despite her #1 ranking.

davenport reached more finals , won more matches ( similar win loss % ) and one more title ...

funny how you argue for hingis' 98, which was inferior to henin's 2006 , let alone henin's 2003 .....

so now the criteria is henin has to beat serena/venus on a non-clay surface ? lol !

Considering Serena had won 5 of the last 6 majors, and Venus had been runner up in 5 of the last 6, did Henin need to beat one of them off of clay, Serena especialy, to be considered better, hell yeah. This is not a Federer vs Nadal case where Nadal usually beats Federer but Federer wins almost every non clay major in his prime, which is what you use to mock when people mention Nadal being missing from draws when Federer won (even events like Wimbledon 09 which Nadal was favored to win had he played). Henin had won NOTHING major off clay prior to the Williams both going down with injury, nada, zilch. Serena had won everything off clay (along with the 02 French to boot) with Venus the other finalist each time, in the last year and half, and this along with Henin producing 0 wins over either off of clay over either in her career to that point. So until Henin won a non clay major with Serena atleast in the draw she had proven nothing as far as being best player. Honestly you are in a fantasy World if you honestly believe Serena was not still considered the best player in the World at the end of 2003. Every expert said she was.

Quote:

henin was #1 player for 2003 ... fact .....

I did not dispute her being #1. I said she was not considered the best player. Have you been too busy worshipping Federer you havent followed the WTA for 15 years?? Well if so stick to mens tennis and dont even bother getting involved in something you know squat about. Anyone who has actually followed the WTA knows one simple rule, the #1 ranking does not automaticaly = best player. Did you consider Wozniacki the best player in 2010 and 2011, Safina in 2009, Davenport in 2004 and 2005.

Note I also did not say Hingis was the best player in 2000 even though she spent almost every week at #1 and ended the year #1. Note I did not say Hingis was the best player in 2001 since she spent almost the whole year there.

Quote:

henin was no 1 in 2006 .....

Indeed she was but again Mauresmo won 2 slams to Henin's 1, and beat Henin in the finals of both. Thus Mauresmo = 2006 best player in World, regardless of ranking.

Quote:

davenport reached more finals , won more matches ( similar win loss % ) and one more title ...

Those are not enough to overcome weaker slam performances and the WTA Championships. Only a much better record in smaller tournaments or tier 1 type events would do that.

Quote:

funny how you argue for hingis' 98, which was inferior to henin's 2006 , let alone henin's 2003 .....

I am comparing Hingis's 1998 to other players in 1998 and Henin's 2003 and 2006 to other players those years. In what bizarre World does Hingis's 1998 compared to Henin's 2006 show whether Hingis was the best in 1998 and whether Henin was the best in 2006.

I am comparing Hingis's 1998 to other players in 1998 and Henin's 2003 and 2006 to other players those years. In what bizarre World does Hingis's 1998 compared to Henin's 2006 show whether Hingis was the best in 1998 and whether Henin was the best in 2006.

well henin's 2003 was wayyyy better than hingis' 98/99 .....and her 2006 was also better than hingis' 98/99 ......

the fact that you even begin to argue hingis was best player in 98/99 but henin wasn't in 2003/2006 (not that I agree with that ) just goes to show that henin faced better competition by some distance in 2003/06 than hingis in 98/99 ....

and I don't follow the WTA as much as the ATP tour, but a bit of common sense helps in either case .....

also don't forget that henin had 5 years where she won slams, hingis only 3 ...

You are right 1997 was a really weak year. Hingis though showed in late 96 she was ready to seriously challenge a prime Graf for #1, it was just unfortunate Graf got injured and she couldnt prove herself vs her. Hingis was #1 ranked most of 1998-2001 vs a very strong field, and while she only won 2 majors her ranking was not controversial until 2001. She had chances to win a number more too but choked some away, made many finals, won a WTA Championships, and won many tournaments. 2003 was a very strong year, but Henin lucked out with both Williams getting injured and missing the U.S Open, and Serena the 04 Australian Open, and this added with the French Open she won by beating Serena gave her the appearance of a dominant run. 2004-2007 were all pretty average years for the WTA, stronger than 1997, but much weaker than 1998-2003. The clay field was never at all strong this period and that is where most of Henin's major titles after winning the 03 U.S Open and 04 Australian Open sans Williams came.

I dont know if they are similar on hard courts. Hingis has a far better Australian Open record. Henin has 2 U.S Open titles and played amazing tennis to win both, but Hingis's overall record is far more consistent there. Henin never won Miami, one of the biggest hard court events, Hingis has won it twice and always performed well there.

I also dont know that they are similar indoors. Hasnt Hingis posted alot more top results indoors than Henin.

Well Hingis lucked out by winning most of her slams before the Williams Sisters and Davenport matured or reached their peaks. But then even a 17 year old Serena had far too much for her in the 1999 US Open final.

On hard courts Henin won 19 titles to Hingis's 17.

Also apart from Hingis's 1999 Australian Open title (where still fortunately for her Mauresmo took out Davenport for her), her other 3 hard court slams had very lightweight draws. I would say that Henin beat much stronger opponents to win her 3 hard court slams all in all. The Clijsters of 2003/2004 that Henin beat to win her 2003 US Open and 2004 Australian Open titles was still a much stronger opponent than any of the 4 opponents that Hingis beat to win her 4 hard court slams (an unseeded Pierce, baby Venus, Martinez and a young Mauresmo). Not to mention that Henin beat Serena and Venus en-route to her 2007 US Open title. Hingis of course did that at the 2001 Aussie Open but couldn't get the job done in the final.

Henin won the olympic gold medal as well. I would take peak Henin over peak Hingis on hard courts in an instant, and even a subpar Henin over a subpar Hingis. I don't think the Hingis of any year could have lived with the Henin of 2007 and her superior firepower on hard courts.

On indoors you are right Hingis's achievements are better with a lot more titles. Then again they both have 2 YEC titles so Henin is not too far behind.

And while Henin didn't dominate a strong clay court field, was it any worse than the pathetically weak hard court field than Hingis dominated from 1997 to early 1998. I very much doubt it.

As far as the world no. 1 ranking goes, at least during every week that Henin spent as the world no. 1, she held a grand slam title. During about 40% of Hingis's time as world no. 1 which came after she lost the 2000 Australian Open final, she didn't hold any grand slam titles.

She would be the GOAT no doubt. She would have 35 slams or more I bet. People talk about what Seles might have achieved without the stabbing, but Connolly was a whole other level entirely. She was unbeatable on all surfaces, not just slower ones like Seles, and there was nobody to challenge her until Court in 62 probably.

All true. She was driven and ruthless in her pursuit of victory.

__________________
In the end, the aggressive all-court player always has the advantage against a power-bashing baseliner.

Much more than Roland Garros ( where Martina was robbed her career slam by french crowds, umpires and nasty Steffi Graf)

Is Henin any closer to career slam?

and was hingis close to winning 7 slams like henin ? slams over a period of more than 3 years , like henin did ? no ... but you wouldn't accept the blindingly obvious facts because all you see in tennis is some of your crushes and are clueless about almost everything else ....

and was hingis close to winning 7 slams like henin ? slams over a period of more than 3 years , like henin did ? no ... but you wouldn't accept the blindingly obvious facts because all you see in tennis is some of your crushes and are clueless about almost everything else ....

So your new crush is Justine Henin?

But I understand your lack of visual knowledge on Hingis, since you were not probably born when she was playing.

__________________
Whenever I walk in a London street, I am always so careful where I put my feet